I wouldn't either, if it weren't for the continuing destructive impact such cross-pollination can have on the voting mind.

That makes sense and see your postion. Thats why I always check and vote pro second amendment. If Im to have a voice may it be one that believe in what I believe in. I also believe the only way to sway an anti is to come up and take out the assailant before he's ready to kill that anti and even then they'll rationalize why you shouldn't have a firearm. They are simply illogical and illogically simple at the same time. I have spoke to some of them an I just don't understand their thought process. I gave up trying.

November 3rd, 2012, 05:29 PM

CaveJohnson

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacman605

CCW9mm. I agree to a point. As others have stated though someone who is hardcore, died in the wool, truly anti gun for whatever reason I don't believe we will ever change there mind. I compare them to a yellow dog democrat. No matter what republican is running they would vote for a yellow dog instead.

The lemmings on the other hand as we agree on simply follow the ebb and flow of public opinion and there is a better than average chance that they would listen to reason and common sense, there's that word again, now whether they would hold to that commitment is another story. All it would take is one moment of Oooooooooooh look shiny, and they would follow someone else.

Yep complacency kills but I also think we have to go about it the right way so as not to end up in the same fate as California OC'ers who, in my opinion, pushed way to hard and although they wanted attention they got the wrong kind of attention and it cost them.

Please note no offense was intended to any yellow dog's with my comment.

The same thing happens with pro-gun people though, they'll vote for someone who has an anti-gun track record because someone tells them to (NRA) even if the candidates are similar, or the one that someone tells them to is even worse.

People hear what they want to hear.

November 3rd, 2012, 10:09 PM

BigStick

I agree that there are plenty of people out there who are ruled by their emotions. Some of them will listen to reason, some will not. But the people I am worried about are not those who are irrational, or ignorant, but those who know very well what firearms mean to free citizens. I am afraid of the politicians and power mongers who need to strip us of our rights, our independance and our self-reliance in order to subjugate us completely. They recognize that the police can not protect us as individuals, but they try to convince us that we can rely on the government for everything because that means they have all of the power. Those are the people I am worried about.

November 4th, 2012, 05:32 AM

oneshot

Quote:

Originally Posted by suntzu

You must know some really stupid anti's is all I am saying. I am not defending anti's, just saying they are not stupid. First of all, only a moron would not know what you are trying to do. I do not hang out with morons. But do what ever ya can to bring people over.

^^^^^^^^^^You're right^^^^^^^^^^^^

The vast majority of anti-s are not stupid.

On the contrary, they are typically well educated people.
That does not mean they are NOT ignorant to reality, or if they are involved in politics or education, that they do not have some sort of agenda to follow.
They also have a skewed perspective that somehow educated and refined people do not need such barbaric means and tools with which to protect themselves, when they have the police.
What they lack is the very important history lesson of what happens to "civilized" societies when governments and dictators begin to "clean house", no matter when or where in history it occured.

It has some straightforward, and logical perspectives, that even very bright people should be able to grasp.
So long as they have an open mind.

November 4th, 2012, 05:38 AM

oneshot

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaveJohnson

The same thing happens with pro-gun people though, they'll vote for someone who has an anti-gun track record because someone tells them to (NRA) even if the candidates are similar, or the one that someone tells them to is even worse.

People hear what they want to hear.

^^^Thats big talk little britches^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Care to back that up with some statistics, of what anti gun politicians the NRA told people to vote for.

They will tell pro gun voters to vote for the lesser of two evils , but FAIK they have not endorsed an anti over a pro gun candidate.

Care to back that up with some statistics, of what anti gun politicians the NRA told people to vote for.

They will tell pro gun voters to vote for the lesser of two evils , but FAIK they have not endorsed an anti over a pro gun candidate.

Harry Reid comes to mind. They backed him over a more pro gun candidate. The reason was that is he did not get reelected then the Senate Mjotiry Leader would go to Schymmer or Durbin who are very anit gun.

So in essence they did back a candidate the was less pro gun than the Republican running against him.

November 4th, 2012, 09:37 AM

Rock and Glock

This thread needs to drift away from politics quickly, folks, or it will have a very short half-life.

September 19th, 2013, 05:12 PM

dfjonathon

Quote:

Originally Posted by steffen

There are definitely a few people that I admire who have, for some reason, made that choice(to be pacifist).

A few examples: Jesus, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr.

‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’
— Mahatma Gandhi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446

William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King's parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King's home as "an arsenal."----from the article "MLK and His Guns" by Adam Winkler, professor of law,UCLA

Being a pacifist does not mean that you should roll over and submit to any and every bully that comes along.--- me:)

September 19th, 2013, 06:27 PM

Goat_Guy

I can't help but notice where this article came from: "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership". I'll bet they have some historical insights on our gun-grabbing police state mentality that most people can't relate to. :rolleyes:

September 19th, 2013, 08:00 PM

Tzadik

Gandhi was anything but a pacifist he was all for action just of the non-violent variety.

BTW his name was Mohandas K. Gandhi, Mahatma is a descriptive term kind like Holy man.

It would be a bit more arrogant than Gandhi really was for him to call himself Mahatma. sorry my Jeopardy self just jumped out and asserted itself... carry on.

Sorry about the thread-jack, but ....ZOMBIES

September 19th, 2013, 08:11 PM

BugDude

I don't care if other people choose to own a firearm or not...as long as they don't impose on my right to choose to.

September 19th, 2013, 08:16 PM

OutWestSystems

The problem in ANY pro vs anti topic the sides don't talk to each other, they talk AT each other. There is no communication, only rhetoric. So a logical, well thought out position is irrelevant, because the other side isn't really going to listen. So trying to change the mind of an anti isn't going to happen, the trick is to get to the people before they make up their minds.

September 19th, 2013, 11:04 PM

KyBill

I though the article held valid viewpoints. It was an article not a doctoral dissertation.

As stated on tne forum by many on frequent occasion, the main reason for anti behavior is an irrational need to control others. Obviously an intelligent person understands that if you are not armed to protect yourself the risk increases. They understand the gun free zones create danger areas. They understand there is low risk that their neighbor will shoot them. And their own ability to decline to bear arms is never in jeapordy. Hence even if intelligent, they are not capable of rational thought on this topic.

September 20th, 2013, 01:38 AM

Ghost1958

I think it its a bit simpler than all that. I believe it is a I know I cant, so you shouldnt be able to either mentality.

Folks who deep down are very aware they simply do not have the mentality to defend themselves and must depend on LE or someone else to do it for them in my lowly opinion also resent the fact that others can and will. And as a result the if I cant defend myself and my family then nobody else should be able to defend themselves and their family either. So lets disarm everyone so we all have to depend on LE to do it for us.

Sounds simplistic I know. But I think it has more to do with it than you might think.